This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You're asking me to explain the obesity epidemic. I can't.
But I can disprove standard medical advice. Honestly, I don't even need to because we are already running the experiment and the results are overwhelming.
But anyway, here's my experiment. We have a control group and an experimental group. The experimental group goes to a location once a week, for one hour, where they receive diet and exercise information provided by you. You can also do anything you want during that hour, including exercise. However, you may not recommend or mention any pharmaceutical intervention. To ensure compliance, each person is paid $50 per hour but people who drop out still count in the experimental group. After 8 weeks, the intervention ends.
Then we check back in 2 years to see how the BMI of the control group and experimental group has changed. I predict with a high degree of confidence that there is no significant difference.
No, I'm not. It would be simple enough for you to just propose an experiment to show that CICO doesn't work. You know, to demonstrate that "something else is going on". For example, you could propose an experiment where subjects are fed maintenance level calories, but gain weight. Or where they're fed deficit level calories, but maintain weight. You could show something specific about a weird nonlinearity that actually contributes to a claim that "something else must be going on". Anything. Literally anything at all that contributes to that. In any way whatsoever.
But I don't think you want to even try to demonstrate that "something else must be going on". You simply want to say that many people don't choose to do a thing, even given extremely mild informational content. That has never been contested, nor does it imply that "something else must be going on".
Who is saying that CICO doesn't work? No one is saying this.
What do you mean when you say, "There's something else going on"? What is the "something other than X"? Please speak plainly and directly about what you are meaning to say. Also, please take into account SMTM's writing on CICO in your description, as that appears to be related to one of the "folk theories" that you said were wrong, according to his explanation.
Sure. Something in our natural environment is causing us to eat more food than we need, thus gaining weight. Throughout most of history (and even today in countries like Vietnam and Japan) people were able to effortlessly stay thin. They eat when they're hungry. Some days, they eat excess calories. Other days they have a deficit. But overall, there is an almost EXACT match between calories eaten and consumed. Being off by even 200 calories a day would lead to serious weight gain over time.
This is homeostatis. And, importantly, it does not require CONSCIOUS thought.
The mistake most people make is the assumption that thin people are thin because they continuously monitor their weight and exert willpower to maintain it. This is the same flawed mental model as the closeted gay who thinks that straight men want to bang other dudes but just resist it. No, straight men don't want to bang other dudes. Likewise, skinny people don't have to RESIST eating that second donut. They simply don't want to. Because they are full.
Something in our diet or environment has disrupted this homeostasis. This "something else" causes our bodies to send signals to eat more than we need. It might be sugar, it might be seed oils, it might be pesticides, it might be lithium. It could even be hyperpalatable foods. But it's causing people to continue to eat when they should feel full.
What I perhaps was not clear on was that I was wanting you to describe what you think X is. What is the foil that has been shown to be wrong, such that "something else" must be going on? What is that something that is separate from the something else? Note that this question goes all the way back to here, where presumably, the X that is wrong was already presented in the conversation.
I'd also note that you did not mention anything about how to reconcile your views with what SMTM has written about CICO. Is this not one of the "folk theories" that he demonstrated was wrong?
Though, to go ahead and discuss the question of homeostasis, consider historical examples of obese people, some going all the way back to antiquity (often rich folks). Did they lack homeostasis? Were those people exposed to this "something else" in their diet or environment, disrupting their homeostasis?
(FYI, SMTM says it's not sugar, so you might want to update. That's one of the "folk theories" that he's proven wrong, too.)
For any onlookers, jeroboam has now blocked me rather than respond to what I thought was a very reasonable question.
You know it’s always interesting to me that the few people who blocked me are never the people with whom I’ve had the most serious or catty arguments, often they’re people I’ve barely even spoken to, or maybe slightly disagreed with on a minor issue like this, but always politely. I think it would be reasonable for @jeroboam to explain why he blocked you, but I understand why the forum does not mandate such an explanation.
@ControlsFreak was giving me homework assignments and then, when I completed those assignments, responding with bad-faith interpretations and snarkiness.
I felt myself getting snarky as well so I thought best to shut it down.
Most importantly, I wasn't learning anything from that user. I'd tolerate a lot if I was learning – as I nearly always do from your own excellent posts @2rafa.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No one claims that consistent diet change is easy or that people are easily controlled.
Okay but the problem is that if it's not frictionless enough then it's not a good enough solution for the masses which means not a good enough solution overall for society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link